| Title |
Phonics training for English‐speaking poor readers
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, December 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1002/14651858.cd009115.pub2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Genevieve McArthur, Philippa M Eve, Kristy Jones, Erin Banales, Saskia Kohnen, Thushara Anandakumar, Linda Larsen, Eva Marinus, Hua‐Chen Wang, Anne Castles |
| Abstract |
Around 5% of English speakers have a significant problem with learning to read words. Poor word readers are often trained to use letter-sound rules to improve their reading skills. This training is commonly called phonics. Well over 100 studies have administered some form of phonics training to poor word readers. However, there are surprisingly few systematic reviews or meta-analyses of these studies. The most well-known review was done by the National Reading Panel (Ehri 2001) 12 years ago and needs updating. The most recent review (Suggate 2010) focused solely on children and did not include unpublished studies. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 5 | 24% |
| Canada | 2 | 10% |
| Australia | 2 | 10% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 5% |
| United States | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 10 | 48% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 12 | 57% |
| Scientists | 7 | 33% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 5% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 5% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 207 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Netherlands | 2 | <1% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Italy | 1 | <1% |
| South Africa | 1 | <1% |
| Belgium | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 199 | 96% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 38 | 18% |
| Researcher | 36 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 26 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 5% |
| Other | 38 | 18% |
| Unknown | 41 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 50 | 24% |
| Social Sciences | 37 | 18% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 19 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 14 | 7% |
| Neuroscience | 9 | 4% |
| Other | 26 | 13% |
| Unknown | 52 | 25% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 65. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 March 2023.
All research outputs
#658,926
of 25,457,858 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#1,209
of 11,499 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#4,602
of 286,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#19
of 195 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,457,858 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,499 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 40.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 286,552 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 195 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.